Käyttäjä:19dec
Use the best business phone features wisely: concerns about content searches during arrest
For many consumers, especially people well-entrenched in the business world, privacy could be the biggest concern when it comes to discovering the right business phone or even just the most effective phone for personal use. Having its many functions and security features, it would seem as though their privacy was ensured. However, in the event of an arrest, there is a possibility that none of those features would be able to protect them.
The case from Daytona Beach
Based on recent news, the State v. Ricardo Glasco case has proven that police officers are allowed to search a suspect?s cell phone for incriminating evidence in case there is an arrest. In the event, the plaintiff, Ricardo Glasco, have been under suspicion of possession of drugs. The moment he was booked in jail, his phone was searched and evidence found. A business phone service provider can only do so much to guard its customers' data; with regards to police search, however, they are able to do nothing.
What steps can be taken?
Right now, the issue is still under debate. However, probably the most popular solutions presented by users of the best business phone systems suggest taking great caution with regards to the data put in a mobile phone. A password is also encouraged, as there is a real possibility that the police cannot force the arrested to surrender it immediately. Caution is always best.
Is it lawful?
Many consumers, especially businessmen who hold sensitive business-related data in their smartphones, are torn between allowing policemen to search a phone for evidence upon arrest or maintaining their right to privacy. Several cases were mentioned in the Glasco case in support of the lawfulness of such actions by the police force. And while the Glasco Court agrees, this may not necessarily be the point of view of the people being searched.
Right now, many people question the reasonability of forcing the arrested party or the telephone service providers to surrender a phone?s password. But according to the case, the suspect had his cell phone in his pocket and the court treated it as a ?container?, thus allowing a search. Now, this puts some businessmen at risk should they have a phone containing vital data in their pockets in the event of an arrest.
Say a lawyer with a smartphone containing important client data-evidence, hearing dates, important case dates, documentation, voice recordings, etc-was arrested for whatever reason: all the data within this phone can be subject to search, and could potentially violate the privacy of his clients in addition to his own. This is doubly risky for men with the best business phone features, including email, VoIP communication and text messaging, the contents of which could contain even more data.
